A Day in the Life

Deadline is Quickly Approaching

Tomorrow's February 1 deadline for all applications is quickly approaching and I can see that there is an increase in the volume of mail that we have been receiving.  There have even been people hand delivering their application trying to make the deadline.   Just last night as I was leaving, I accepted an application from a prospective student who was coming by the Law School after work.  Though we receive the vast majority of our applications by the deadline, we will continue accepting applications after February 1 and review them if there is room in the class.  Last year we were still accepting applications until about April 1.  Since we have a "rolling admissions" policy we review files in the order they are completed.  The longer you wait, the further in line your application will be for review by the admissions committee.  So far this year, we have already admitted 31 studetns early decision, and have made our first round of offers of admissions to the regular applicant pool - so you can see that the class is already starting to fill up.  However, we look forward to reviewing all of the applications we receive this year.  So get them done, get them in, and take a deep breath and relax! 

How's My Driving?

We've had Chicago's Best Ideas talks on a wide variety of topics. Some of them are historical, some contemporary, some obscure, some pedestrian. I've never seen one that had as wide-ranging appeal as the one we had on January 24, because it dealt with a subject that nearly every one of our students had intimate experience with: driving. Lior Strahilevitz delivered a talk on his notion that we should all be subject to a program like the "How's My Driving?" program you see on the backs of trucks. The truck program saves lives, and Professor Stahilevitz argues that in this case, more is better. Imagine it - someone cuts you off on the highway and you no longer have to just silently fume or yell at someone who can't hear you. Under this program, you report the bad driver! Intrinsically fascinating, Professor Stahilevitz's presentation caused half the packed room to raise hands for questions. You can hear this talk here.

Culling Chickens

Ronald H. Coase has been a member of the Law School's faculty since 1964. He won the Nobel Prize in 1991 for, among other things, the Coase Theorem. To this day he is the only Nobel Laureate to serve full time on the faculty of an American law school. In his honor, we have been hosting the annual Ronald H. Coase Lecture in Law and Economics since 1992. The lecture is geared towards our first year law students, so we hope that it will be accessible to you as well.

This year's Coase Lecture, on January 23, 2007, was delivered by Professor Anup Malani and titled "Culling Chickens." Professor Malani spoke about prevention of the spread of avian flu in chickens, particularly, although not exclusively, in third world countries. Much of the discussion centered around the economic principles that go into determining the appropriate rate to pay for potentially-diseased chickens in order to ensure that farmers will indeed turn them over for slaughter.  A lively Q&A followed, and you can listen to the whole thing here.

How I Read Files

After reading Dean Badger's very interesting post about how he reads files in sets of six, it occurred to me that my method is quite different, and I thought I would share my routine in our ongoing effort to demystify the admissions process. 

I receive a box of files every week or so, and it generally sits in the corner for a day or two. It then lands by my desk, and I try to read files periodically during the day when my other obligations seem manageable. The box is ordered alphabetically, so I am assured of a healthy variety of applicants in each box. 

I try to read in bursts because it keeps things interesting and allows me to work on other projects during the day. A burst may be two files, it may be ten, but the important thing is to make progress!

When reading files, I always start with the Personal Statement.  This (hopefully) gives me a sense of the person, their character, and helps inform the other parts of the file. After the Personal Statement, I review the resume to give a sense of what the applicant has been up to both academically and professionally, and then I look at the LSAC report to look in-depth at the academic performance, grade trends, performance against their peers, and LSAT score. I next turn the page and look at the transcripts to see what classes they took over their four (or more) years, which I find fascinating and revealing, it's amazing the intellectual variety students are exposed to in college. I look closely at their last two semesters of school, as that is usually their toughest and most relevant academic work. I last turn to their recommendations to see what their profs and/or bosses have to say, which hopefully is enthusiastic, specific, and positive. I then review any other materials in the file, such as addenda. One warning: Don't over-addenda us!!

As I review the different parts of the application, I keep a red pen and post-it pad close by to write notes, questions, or comments for the committee. I usually comment if something is really impressive (such as 'wonderful Recs' or 'amazing grades Jr. year') or I also point out any glaring deficiencies that I notice (like 'PS full of typos' or 'Bad 2nd rec') so that when the file is subsequently reviewed or discussed, I can convey my thoughts and explain my decision. I also note mitigating factors ('sick jr. year, but all A's otherwise') or hidden weaknesses ('good grades but intro classes and lots of P/F'). I will sometimes offer a short summary on the post-it ('great candidate, uneven grades but amazing recs'). 

Once I've finished my initial review, I may go back and look at something again, like check a grade mentioned by a recommender, or re-read the resume to see if a job or extracurriculars explain any grade trends or weak semesters. Sometimes I will ask another member of the admissions committee to look at the file for feedback on things like a foreign university, a strange personal statement or a confusing letter of recommendation. I frequently find myself asking students general questions about things I read in files, like the eating clubs at Princeton, the grading scale at West Point, or the infamous UVA honor code. 

At that point, I make my decision. Sometimes I flag a file to revisit once the whole box is done, but usually I am comfortable with a decision. Occasionally I will revisit a file several times, and change my decision after some reflection. My main problem is that I want to admit everybody, but sadly we don't have the classroom space to accommodate all 5000 applicants!

Students Volunteer at Food Bank

Last week a group of law student volunteers joined the Dean of Students for a wonderful service opportunity.  The group spent the evening at the Greater Chicago Food Depository (GCFD) on Chicago’s west side.  The GCFD distributes more than 40 million pounds of food each year through a network of 600 local member agencies that include food pantries, soup kitchens, shelters, and the Chicago public schools.    Through these efforts over 500,000 people each year receive services from the GCFD.  33% of those served are children.  Volunteers from the law school spent most of the evening in an assembly line re-packaging food for a program called “Nourish for Knowledge” that provides supplemental food supplies to impoverished children and their families.  We all worked hard, but there was plenty of time for the students to chat with each other and with some of the other volunteers while we went about our work.  Together, we packaged over 1000 bags of food in just under three hours.  Our students commented that in addition to feeling great about the service that was provided, it was a great opportunity for 1Ls, 2Ls, and 3Ls to get to know each other!   We all look forward to the next service event in the Spring Quarter.

The Audio Constitution

The Constitution of the United States is a masterpiece of a governing document, but it’s also quite poetic. The beauty of the text is hard to appreciate on paper, but when it’s read out loud, you can really hear the elegance of it. Never heard it read out loud, you say? Then today’s your lucky day. David Currie, one of our esteemed faculty members and one of the country’s leading constitutional law scholars, read aloud the entire document as a graduation present to the Class of 2006. We’ve provided the audio file as a podcast that you can download here, and even broken it out for you article by article, amendment by amendment on the Socrates section of our website.

Government Secrecy v. Freedom of the Press

On Wednesday, Professor Geoffrey Stone delivered a Chicago's Best Ideas talk with the title of "Government Secrecy v. Freedom of the Press." Professor Stone described the talk as follows:

"After the New York Times disclosed that President Bush had secretly authorized the National Security Agency to intercept international electronic communications, the Attorney General, other members of the Bush administration, and several members of Congress suggested that the United States might criminally prosecute the New York Times for publishing classified national security information. In what circumstances, may the United States constitutionally prosecute public officials, reporters, and publishers for the disclosure and dissemination of classified information?"

Listen to the talk to hear Professor Stone explain why what looks like a balancing test isn't always a balancing test and why this talk is about so much more than the Pentagon Papers.

Professor Bernard Meltzer, 1914-2007

The Law School community lost one of its giants this week. Professor Bernard Meltzer '37 served on the Law School faculty from 1946 until his retirement in 1985, but he continued to be a daily presence in the building until very recently. Professor Meltzer was an extraordinary teacher and scholar, and one of the world's leading authorities in labor law. Prior to joining the faculty, he had an incredible career in government service.  Shortly after graduating from the Law School, he worked for the SEC and in private practice, and then was called into service during the years before America's entry into World War II. He served in both the State Department and the National Defense Advisory Commission and then as a commissioned Officer in the Navy in the Office of Strategic Services. After the war he assisted in drafting the charter of the United Nations and then served as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg International War Trials. After his service was over, he joined the Law School faculty, and we were honored to have him here for the rest of his career.

During his time at the Law School, he created the first course in international organizations and made his name teaching and writing in labor law and evidence. Among many other things, he developed the idea for the Law School’s famous Jury Project, advised attorneys representing clients during the McCarthy Era and also successfully represented clients in loyalty investigations, and served as a salary arbitrator for Major League Baseball.

To those of us who knew Bernie (as we affectionately called him) in his later life, he was the man who was always around, always knew everyone's name, and always had a smile, a kind word, and a keen insight for you. He took the stairs up several flights to his office every day (when those many decades younger took the elevator), and always seemed to know exactly what was going on around here, no matter how small. His mind remained sharp to the very end, and he mentored and taught many generations of students - and colleagues. We will miss him very much.

Ordinarily, this blog deals with lighter topics, but we thought it was important to show you this aspect of our community. Please click here to read more about Professor Meltzer's life, and visit our home page to see a selection of photos of the man at work.

Should I Work Before Law School: Student Perspective II

Last week, we heard from 2L Sarah Waxman about her career path that led her back to law school after working in the non-profit world for a number of years. This week, our counterpoint is another Sara – 2L Sara Feinstein who came straight through to the Law School from undergrad:

"Corny as it may sound, I am truly one of those people who always wanted to be a lawyer. I always intended to go to law school directly after undergrad. As a senior at Northwestern, I could not fathom what else I would do for the possible interim period some people take before law school to gain 'experience.' At one point, frustrated when one school essentially demanded I take a year off to secure admission, I asked during an interview if working as Cinderella at DisneyLand would suffice. The reply was in the affirmative, and my heels dug in that much further. From my perspective, anything that wasn’t law school would have been a waste of my time as I would be merely wishing that I could begin my career.

When I decided to attend the University of Chicago Law School, I feared entering a cold environment, chock full of experienced individuals. I worried that my lack of experience would somehow put me at a disadvantage. However, my fears could not have been farther from the reality I encountered. The small size of the class ensures a vibrant law school community, one which thrives on the diverse perspectives. Additionally, some of the more mature individuals I have met have come straight through from an undergraduate experience, so there was no bright line dividing the maturity "haves" from the "have nots." Ultimately, the first year of law school is a marathon during which individuals amass writing, analytical, and communicative skills – a process which usually presents a challenge for all individuals, regardless of background. Though some enter with far more life experience than I had accumulated, I did not feel at a disadvantage in any way. Perhaps only in one way - that I had not yet explored the extent of caffeine alternatives, only developing a dependency on Red Bull during the final quarter of my 1L year."

Should I Work Before Law School: Student Perspective I

To follow up on our December 22, 2006 post on taking time off before coming to law school, we asked 2L Sarah Waxman to weigh in on her work experience before law school. Here's what she had to say:

"Before law school, I worked in nonprofit immigration legal services for six years. I graduated from college with little idea (okay, no idea) of what I wanted to do with myself, though I knew I was interested in Latin America and immigration. I decided, almost on a whim, to try the legal services side of the convergence of these two interests. Two years' experience as a caseworker with the Midwest Immigrant and Human Rights Center whetted my appetite, and I spent the next four years developing and running the legal services program at a community-based nonprofit called Latinos Progresando. After six years working in legal services, it looked to me like something that might be called a long-term commitment, so I decided that law school was (as many people had been letting me know frequently for the previous several years) the next logical step.

Despite the near-overwhelming rigor of the first year of law school, I found it to be something of a joy to return to school. I had developed internal discipline and an acceptance of demanding schedules during my working years, and these skills served me well my first year. It was also a bit of a relief and a pleasure to give myself over to an all-ordering law school administration; unlike at work, where emergencies popped up, meetings intruded, and my time was rarely my own, at school everything was organized for me. All I had to do was study. A lot.

In short, coming back was not difficult; it feels at times selfish, and sometimes frustratingly unproductive, but I'm also grateful for the opportunity on a fairly regular basis, which I don't think I would have been seven years ago."